Summary: On
the same day the Court issued its decision in Fawn Lyons v. Montana
Power Company, 1999 MTWCC 16, it received from claimant's counsel a
request to note that counsel was under a deadline to submit a petition
for hearing in another case which had similar issues and which counsel
hoped to litigate on the same schedule as this matter. Counsel suggested
the short deadline for response to demand it had given insurer's counsel
was justified by the petition deadline.

Held: The Court
does not find this explanation to excuse counsel's conduct in proceeding
to litigation without giving opposing counsel adequate time to assess
a demand. Counsel's desire to litigate two cases together and soon does
not justify failure to allow the opposing party time to assess and possibly
meet a demand.

Topics:

Attorneys: Correspondence.
Counsel's desire to litigate two cases together and soon does
not justify failure to allow the opposing party time to assess and
possibly meet a demand. Court condemns counterproductive hardball
tactics.

Attorneys: Conduct and
Tactics. Counsel's desire to litigate two cases together and soon
does not justify failure to allow the opposing party time to assess
and possibly meet a demand. Court condemns counterproductive hardball
tactics.

¶1 On the same day as this
Court issued its decision and judgment, the Court received a request
from claimant's counsel, Mr. Chris J. Ragar, that the Court take judicial
notice of Exhibit 27 in the case of Galetti v. MPC, 1999 MTWCC
11 (February 4, 1999). He argues that the exhibit is important to the
Court's assessment of the June 1, 1998 demand he made upon MPC, which
demand the Court criticized during the trial and again in its Decision.

¶2 The exhibit is the attorney
fee agreement between Mr. Ragar and Gary Galetti, signed June 1, 1998.
Mr. Ragar argues that the June 1st demand was reasonable
because he intended to pursue both the Lyons and Galetti
cases simultaneously and had been unable to get a get a signed
agreement with Mr. Galetti until June 1st, and because the
deadline for the next Butte term of Court was July 1st.

¶3 The Court is unpersuaded
by Mr. Ragar's arguments, indeed it reiterates its criticism regarding
the demand. The demand gave MPC's attorney, Mr. W. Wayne Harper, two
and a half hours to accept the demand, that assuming it was transmitted
at the time set forth in the letter. Mr. Ragar represents a number of
clients who have claims against MPC and has for some time been communicating
with Mr. Harper. MPC has agreed to pay benefits in a number of those
cases without any order of this Court. Fawn Lyon's claim was over two
years old and involved approximately $250 of out-of-pocket medical expenses.
At the time of the demand and the filing of the petition, she had not
determined the exact amount due her or even obtained all of the medical
bills. There was no urgency in getting the matter on the Butte term
of Court with the June 1st filing deadline. As it turned
out, MPC admitted liability for the medical bills. Had Mr. Ragar allowed
a reasonable time for a response this litigation could and should have
been avoided.

¶4 Whether or not Mr. Ragar
was entitled to pursue the Lyons' petition with such
a short demand, his aggressive prosecution of the claim was neither
necessary nor productive. His past dealings with Mr. Harper should have
indicated to him that there was a reasonable prospect that the matter
could be resolved without resort to litigation, at least as to the claim
itself. He provided no opportunity for informal resolution and set a
combative, uncompromising tone for the further course of the litigation,
and even then he had not finally determined how much was owed claimant
when the trial began. Certainly, Lyons was entitled to Mr.
Ragar's best efforts on her behalf, but the Court fails to see how her
case was advanced by the short-fused demand and the immediate resort
to litigation. The Court has been burdened with litigation that was
probably unnecessary and the attorneys have spent unnecessary time preparing
and presenting the case.

¶5 The Court takes judicial
notice of Exhibit 27 in Galetti. MPC need not respond to the
claimant's request that it do so.